Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/24/2018
1
Toward Meaningful Outcomes from Dignified Processes
A Tutorial on the Practical Functional Assessment Process for Problem Behavior
For more information go to:
www.practicalfunctionalassessment.com
Gregory P. Hanley Ph.D., BCBA-D
Seminar for: August, 2018
National Autism ConferencePenn State University
With Autism, there is a higher likelihoodof problem behavior likemeltdowns, aggression, and self-injury
Why do restricted “lifestyles” dictated by problem behavior
persist for many familieswith children on the spectrum?
7/24/2018
2
Restrictive lifestyles persist partly because problem behavior of children is merely
modifiedmedicated
mollified micro-analyzed
remedied apart from skill development
Powerful working assumption
If problem behavior is occurring with regularity…..
– it is being reinforced
(Even when important biological/medical factors are known or suspected.)
7/24/2018
3
The one thing at a time model
Antecedent Behavior Consequence
Establishing operation Problem Beh. Reinforcement
Mom attends to Throwing toys Mom’s attention
Sibling
Dad instructs to SIB Dad gives a little turn off Ipad more time on Ipad
The one thing at a time model:
An Antecedent A Behavior A Consequence
An Establishing A Problem Behavior A Reinforceroperation
The shift to the many things at a time model:
Antecedents Behaviors Consequences
Establishing Problem Behaviors Reinforcersoperations
7/24/2018
4
The one thing at a time model:An Antecedent A Behavior A ConsequenceAn Establishing operation A Problem Behavior A Reinforcer
The many things at a time model:
Antecedents Behaviors ConsequencesEstablishing Problem Behaviors Reinforcersoperations
Put away iPad Noncompliance + Avoidance of chores + to do chores resistance + continued time on iPad +(brother present) negotiating + choices +
screaming + undivided attentionflopping +slapping
The many things at a time TREATMENT model:
Antecedents Behaviors ConsequencesSame establishing New Skills Same reinforcersoperations
Put away iPad “excuse me” break from more chores+ + to do chores Listens to parent time on iPad +(brother present) “May I have my way please” choices of activity +
“Okay, no problem” some undivided attnComplies with multiple
instructions and corrections
7/24/2018
5
Dignified processes and meaningful outcomes may be achieved when it is assumed that
1. Multiple establishing operations are usually influencing problem behavior and doing so simultaneously
2. Multiple reinforcers simultaneously maintain most problem behavior i.e., problem behavior is multiply controlled and usually controlled by at least escape to tangibles, attention, & either sensory reinforcers, mandcompliance, or both
– The trick is to determine the details within these generic categories that are relevant to each person
3. Most problem behavior emitted by the same person is sensitive to the same synthesized reinforcement contingency
Functional assessment is a process to determine the variables influencing problem behavior
Functional analysis is an attempt to model the natural conditions in which problem behavior is evoked and reinforced.
7/24/2018
6
“All models are wrong;
some are useful.”
Box & Draper, 1987, p. 424
Functional Assessment Process
Functional Analysis*IISCA
Indirect Assessment *Open-ended interview
Descriptive Assessment*Single, brief observation
Discovery Demonstrationand
7/24/2018
7
Traditional
Functional
Analysis
Multiple test conditions
Uniform test conditions
Isolated test contingencies
Reinforce dangerous behavior
Toy-play control condition
Interview-Informed
Synthesized Contingency
Analysis
Single-test condition
Individualized test conditions
Synthesized contingencies
Reinforce precursors to and
dangerous behavior
Test-matched control
Case Example: Gail, 3 years old, PDD-NOS
Interview suggested that Gail engaged in meltdowns and aggression….
when Mom was attending to other tasks or people….
in order to gain Mom’s undivided attention and to have Mom play with her and her most preferred toys.
7/24/2018
8
Functional Analysis: Control Condition
Control: Mom directs her undivided attention to Gail while interacting with her and her most preferred toys the entire time.
Gail
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
min
ute
0
1
2
3
4
Control
Test
In the control, we are emulating the conditions Mom described as being associated with no problem behavior.
Functional Analysis: Test Condition
Test: Mom attends to other tasks and people….
As soon as Gail engaged in any problem behavior, Mom directs her undivided attention to Gail while interacting with her and her most preferred toys.
Gail
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
min
ute
0
1
2
3
4
Control
Test
In the test, we are emulating the conditions Mom described as being associated with Gail’s problem behavior.
7/24/2018
9
Case Example: Gail, 3 years old, PDD-NOS
By alternating between 5 minute periods of test and control conditions, we were able to turn on and off Gail’s problem behavior….
Giving us and her Mom confidence as to why she was engaging in the extraordinary problem behavior
….to simply gain and maintain her Mom’s undivided attention and play time
Gail
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
min
ute
0
1
2
3
4
Control
Test
Safety is Paramount
Safety is primarily insured through:
Immediate delivery
Of all suspected reinforcers
For any member of the response class
(use relatively open response classes; Warner et al., 2018)
Other safety tactics
Body position
Everybody with session termination authority
7/24/2018
10
IISCA - Brandon• Age: 3
• Diagnosis: None
• Language Level: Speaks in Short Sentences
• Referred for: Aggression, Meltdowns,
Noncompliance
LIFE SKILLS CLINICAT WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY
Sessions1 2 3 4 5
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
Min
ute
0
1
2
3
Control
Test
Escape to tangibles, attention, andmand compliance
IISCA - Diego• Age: 11
• Diagnosis: Autism
• Language Level: Speaks in Short Sentences
• Referred for: Self-injurious behavior,Aggression, Property Destruction
LIFE SKILLS CLINICAT WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY
Sessions1 3 5
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
Min
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Control
Test
Diego
Escape from academic work to
tangibles, attendion
7/24/2018
11
What does an informed analysis provide the practitioner?
1. a demonstration of problem behavior sensitivity to a suspected reinforcement contingency
2. a stable and sensitive baseline from which to evaluate treatment
3. a properly motivating set of conditions to teach important life skills
Analysis - Luke• Age: 4
• Diagnosis: Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
• Language Level: Fully fluent speech
• Referred for: Aggression, Property Destruction, Meltdowns
LIFE SKILLS CLINICAT WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY
Sessions
1 3 5 7 9
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
0
1
2
3
ControlTest
Luke
Escape to tangibles, attention,
mand compliance
7/24/2018
12
EXT Analysis –Luke
• Age: 4
• Diagnosis: Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
• Language Level: Fully fluent speech
• Referred for: Aggression, Property Destruction, Meltdowns
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
8 . 0
1 0 . 0
0
Re
sp
on
se
s
pe
r
mi
nu
te
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
2 4 6 8 1 0
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
S e s s i o n s
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
L u k e
Th
ro
wi
ng
1
Ag
gr
es
si
on
Di
sr
up
ti
ve
s
ou
nd
sD
is
ru
pt
io
nV
oc
al
d
is
ru
pt
io
ns
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
2 4 6 8 1 0
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
J o r d a n
Ag
gr
es
si
on
1
Di
sr
up
ti
on
Th
ro
wi
ng
Vo
ca
l
di
sr
up
ti
on
s
R e m o v e d f r o m
c o n t i n g e n c y c l a s s
I n c l u d e d i n
c o n t i n g e n c y
c l a s s
R e m o v e d f r o m
c o n t i n g e n c y c l a s s
I n c l u d e d i n
c o n t i n g e n c y
c l a s s
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
8 . 0
1 0 . 0
0
Re
sp
on
se
s
pe
r
mi
nu
te
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
2 4 6 8 1 0
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
S e s s i o n s
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
4 . 0
0
L u k e
Th
ro
wi
ng
1
Ag
gr
es
si
on
Di
sr
up
ti
ve
s
ou
nd
sD
is
ru
pt
io
nV
oc
al
d
is
ru
pt
io
ns
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
2 4 6 8 1 0
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
J o r d a n
Ag
gr
es
si
on
1
Di
sr
up
ti
on
Th
ro
wi
ng
Vo
ca
l
di
sr
up
ti
on
s
R e m o v e d f r o m
c o n t i n g e n c y c l a s s
I n c l u d e d i n
c o n t i n g e n c y
c l a s s
R e m o v e d f r o m
c o n t i n g e n c y c l a s s
I n c l u d e d i n
c o n t i n g e n c y
c l a s s
EXT Analysis –Raj
• Age: 5
• Diagnosis: Autism
• Language Level: Single word utterances
• Referred for: Self-Injury, Aggression, Property Destruction
5 1 5 2 5
0 . 5
1 . 0
1 . 5
2 . 0
0
0 . 5
1 . 0
1 . 5
2 . 0
0
Re
sp
on
se
s
pe
r
mi
nu
te
0 . 5
1 . 0
1 . 5
2 . 0
0
2 . 0
4 . 0
6 . 0
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
0
S e s s i o n s
1 . 0
2 . 0
3 . 0
0
Di
sr
up
ti
on
Fl
op
3
Co
ve
ri
ng
f
ac
e
or
e
ar
sS
to
mp
sA
gg
re
ss
io
n2
SI
B1
R a j
R e m o v e d f r o m c o n t i n g e n c y c l a s sI n c l u d e d
i n c o n t .
c l a s s
I n c l u d e d i n
c o n t i n g e n c y
c l a s s
7/24/2018
13
Analysis - Jeffrey• Age: 9
• Diagnosis: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder
• Language Level: Speaks with Sophistication
• Referred for: Aggression, Elopement, Meltdowns
– required several police escorts from school just prior to our involvement
– Had school 1:1 (we served family)
LIFE SKILLS CLINICAT WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY
Sessions1 2 3 4 5 6
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
Min
0
2
4
6
8
ControlTest
Escape to tangibles,
attention, and
mand compliance
IISCA: Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis
1. Single
2. Individualized
3. Synthesized contingency
4. Reinforce precursors to and dangerous behavior
5. Test-matched
6. Rapid alternation of test and control conditions
Test
Control
Analysis
7/24/2018
14
Interview-informed&
Synthesized reinforcement contingencies
Most Important Aspects of our Approach
*Neither are novel*Neither are sufficiently recognized in current ABA research or practice
Why synthesize?
Isolated contingencies sometimes do not control behavior whereas synthesizedcontingencies do.
0
1
2
3
4
Tangible /
Attention
Analyst
Mother
Analyst
Mother
Analyst
Gail
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
Min
0
1
2
3
4
Tangible
Sessions
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
1
2
3
4
Test
Control
Meltdowns
Col 46 Attention
Case Example (Gail, 3 yo, dx: PDD-NOS)Setting: Clinic
Syn
the
sized
Isola
ted
Isola
ted
From Hanley et al. 2014, JABA
7/24/2018
15
Ignore/Alone
EscapeTangible
Play
Attention
0
2
4 Escape totangiblesand attention
0
2
4 Escape totangiblesand attention
0
2
4Escape to rituals
2 4 6
0
1Escape to tangibles
5 10 15 20
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
Sessions
IISCA Standard
Dylan
Emily
Chloe
Jeff
0
2
4
ControlTest
Escape totangibles
Analysis Comparison (Slaton et al., 2017, JABA)
Synthesized Isolated Sometimes both synthesized and isolated reinforcement contingencies influence problem behavior
0
1
2TestControl
Escape to tangiblesand attention
Tangible
Ignore/Alone
PlayEscape
Attention
0
1
2
3Escape to tangiblesand attention
1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3Escape totangibles
5 10 15
0
2
4 Escape totangiblesand attention
Diego
Mason
Riley
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
Sessions
IISCA Standard IISCA
Analysis Comparison (Slaton et al., 2017, JABA)
But our analyses show, more often, that
synthesized reinforcement
contingencies influence problem
behavior whereas isolated ones do not
Synthesized Isolated Synthesized
*Whole contingencies have properties that sometimes cannot be found in the parts of the contingency
7/24/2018
16
Synthesized Contingency First Author (Year) ParticipantsEscape to mand compliance Bowman (1997)
Eluri (2016)
Jessel (2016)
Roscoe (2015)
Ben, Jerry
Pablo
Allen, Mike, Jesse, Jian
Chris
Escape to previous activity Adelinis (1999)
Fisher (1998)
Hanley (2014)
Hagopian (2007)
Raffie
Ike, Tina
Bob
Perry, Maxwell, Kelly
Escape to rituals / stereotypy Leon (2013)
Rispoli (2014)
Jessel (2016)
Slaton (2017)
Laura
Timmy, John, Diego
Sam
Chloe
Attention + tangibles Brown (2000)
Ghaemmaghami (2016)
Hanley (2014)
Mann (2009)
Payne (2014)
Santiago (2016)
Jim
Jack, Nico
Gail
Madison
Samantha
Karen
Escape + tangibles Fisher (2016)
Jessel (2016)
Lambert (2017)
Lloyd (2015)
Roscoe (2015)
Slaton (2017)
Strohmeier (2016)
Cameron
Kristy, Jim, Carson, Chris, Mitch
S-2
Abhi, Sid
Jim
Riley, Dylan, Jeff,
S-1 (no pseudonym given)
Escape + attention Mueller (2005)
Payne (2014)
Sarno (2011)
Bob
Andrew
Brandon, Franklin, J’Marcus
Escape + attention
+ tangibles
Fisher (2016)
Ghaemmaghami (2015)
Jessel (2016)
Santiago (2016)
Slaton (2017)
Alan, Allie, Sylvia, Tina
Dan
Jeff, Gary, Wayne, Earl, Keo, Lee, Paul
Zeke
Diego, Emily, Kyle, Jonah
Escape + attention + tangibles +
mand compliance
Ghaemmaghami (2016)
Hanley (2014)
Jessel (2016)
Alex
Dale
Jian
Escape + preferred
conversation topics
Jessel (2016)
Santiago (2016)
Slaton (2017)
Sid, Beck, Steve
Karen
Mason
Isolated contingencies sometimes do not control behavior whereas synthesized contingencies do. From:
Nature and Scope of Synthesisin Functional Analysis and Treatment of Problem Behavior
Slaton & Hanley (in press, JABA)
Treatment efficacy often depends on synthesized contingenciesFrom:
Nature and Scope of Synthesisin Functional Analysis and Treatment of Problem Behavior
Slaton & Hanley (in press, JABA)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-500
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Synthesized Isolated
Within-subject comparisons Applications without comparisons
Treatment applications
Mea
n
bas
elin
e re
du
ctio
n
(%)
Synthesized contingencies had a better effect size in 25 of 26 cases (96%) and never had a smaller effect
7/24/2018
17
Treatment efficacy often depends on synthesized contingenciesFrom:
Nature and Scope of Synthesisin Functional Analysis and Treatment of Problem Behavior
Slaton & Hanley (in press, JABA)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-500
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Synthesized Isolated
Within-subject comparisons Applications without comparisons
Treatment applications
Mea
n
bas
elin
e re
du
ctio
n
(%)
>80% reductionin PB
12% 81%
Treatment efficacy often depends on synthesized contingenciesFrom:
Nature and Scope of Synthesisin Functional Analysis and Treatment of Problem Behavior
Slaton & Hanley (in press, JABA)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-500
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Synthesized Isolated
Within-subject comparisons Applications without comparisons
Treatment applications
Mea
n
bas
elin
e re
du
ctio
n
(%)
>80% reductionin PB
87%
7/24/2018
18
Treatment Comparison Results
0
1
2
3
4
5
FCR
BL FCT + EXT
Escape totangibles,attention
Problembehavior
BL FCT + EXT
Escape
5 10
0
1
Escape totangibles
BL FCT + EXT
5 10
Attention
BL FCT + EXT
IISCA- based treatment Standard-based treatmentP
rob
lem
beh
avio
r p
er m
in
Sessions
Emily
Jeff
(Slaton et al., 2017, JABA)
and it works despite different participant characteristics and different implementation contexts
7/24/2018
19
From Jessel, Hanley, & Ghaemmaghami
(JABA, 2016)
0
4
8
12Will
TestControl
Wayne Allen Kat (Cxt 1)Sam
0
2
4
6Jack (Cxt 1) Keo
Kristy Jim
Roxy
0
2
4
6Alex (Cxt 2) Chris
Jeff Zeke Kat (Cxt 2)
0
1
2
3
4 Mike Mitch
Gary Jian Earl
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
Paul Dan
Alex (Cxt 1) Beck
Sid
2 6 10
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
Lee
2 4 6
Steve
1 3 5
Jesse
1 3 5
Carson
1 3 5
Jack (Cxt 2)
Sessions
Pro
blem
beh
avio
r pe
r m
in
Sessions
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
ute
From Rajaraman et al. (2018)
7/24/2018
20
Strand & Eldevik (2017, Beh. Int.)
Herman, Healy, & Lydon (2018, Dev. Neuro.)
Jessel, Ingvarsson, Metras, Hillary, & Whipple (2018, JABA)
Beaulieu, Clausen, Williams, & Herscovitch (in press, BAP)
Chusid & Beaulieu (in press, JABA)
Similar effects reported in these—from other research groups
Effects deemed meaningful by parents and teachers following analysis and treatment involving synthesized reinforcement contingencies
Baseline Treatment
0
2
4
6
N = 25
p < .001
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You found the recommended treatment acceptable
You are satisfied with the amount ofimprovement seen in problem behavior
You are satisfied with the amountof improvement seen in
communication skills
You found the assessment andtreatment helpful to your home situation
Notacceptable/satisfied/helpful
Highlyacceptable/satisfied/helpfulCaregiver Rating
Jessel et al. (2018) JABA
Achieving Socially Significant Reductions in Problem Behavior following the Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis: A Summary of 25 Outpatient Applications
7/24/2018
21
Greater Motivational Distance Travelled
Why do qualitatively rich, ecologically relevant, and synthesized contingencies allow for effective outcomes?
Some candidate variables:
1. Greater amount of reinforcement
2. Varied reinforcers minimizing satiation
3. Provision of choice among reinforcers(which is reinforcing in and of itself)
4. Positive interactions between reinforcers (i.e., they may be complimentary reinforcers)
5. ….
For now, let’s simply consider this metaphor:
EO Sr
R
With SFA, there is relatively short motivational distance travelled as child transitions from:
no tangible to tangible , or
work to no work , or
no attention to attention (reprimands)
*that’s one interpretation
7/24/2018
22
EO Sr
R
EOEOEO
=
*here’s another interpretation
With SFA, there is sometimes a relatively short and incomplete motivational distance travelled during transition
E.g., Demand condition
no tangible, no attention,
no mand compliance, and work to no work
(& still no attention, tangibles,
or mand compliance)
EO Sr
R
EOEOEO
0
1
2
3
4
5
FCR
BL FCT + EXT
Escape totangibles,attention
Problembehavior
BL FCT + EXT
Escape
5 10
0
1
Escape totangibles
BL FCT + EXT
5 10
Attention
BL FCT + EXT
IISCA- based treatment Standard-based treatment
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
Sessions
Emily
Jeff
0
1
2
Escape topredictableschedule
Control
Test
EscapePlay
AttentionTangible
Alone
1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2Escape to tangibles,stereotypy, andattention
5 10 15 20 25
0
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3Escape to tangiblesand attention
5 10 15
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
Kyle
Jonah
IISCA Standard
Sessions
may lead to out of control
problem behavior in SFA may lead to a failure for an FCR to be acquired
An incomplete motivational distance travelled
7/24/2018
23
EO Sr
R
EOEOEOEO Sr Sr Sr Sr
With IISCA, there is relatively long motivational distance travelled as child transitions from:
No tangibles, no mand compliance, tangibles, mand compliance,
limited sensory reinforcers, to all sensory reinforcers,
no high quality attention, & work high quality attention, and no work
EO Sr
R
EOEOEOEO Sr Sr Sr Sr
With IISCA, there is relatively long motivational distance travelled as child transitions from:
No tangibles, no mand compliance, tangibles, mand compliance,
limited sensory reinforcers, to all sensory reinforcers,
no high quality attention, & work high quality attention, and no wor
But, don’t forget about possible interactions:
which probably creates even greater motivational distance travelled
7/24/2018
24
EO Sr
R
EOEOEO Sr Sr Sr
0
1
2
Escape topredictableschedule
Control
Test
EscapePlay
AttentionTangible
Alone
1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2Escape to tangibles,stereotypy, andattention
5 10 15 20 25
0
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3Escape to tangiblesand attention
5 10 15
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
Kyle
Jonah
IISCA Standard
Sessions
With proper motivational distance travelled, problem behavior is evoked quickly in analyses and is discontinued once Sr is delivered
0
1
2
3
4
5
FCR
BL FCT + EXT
Escape totangibles,attention
Problembehavior
BL FCT + EXT
Escape
5 10
0
1
Escape totangibles
BL FCT + EXT
5 10
Attention
BL FCT + EXT
IISCA- based treatment Standard-based treatment
Pro
ble
m b
ehav
ior
per
min
Sessions
Emily
Jeff
EO Sr
R
EOEO Sr Sr
With proper motivational distance travelled, FCRs are quickly acquired (& problem behavior does not usually persist during FCT)
7/24/2018
25
Skinner, 1958, S&HB, p. 205:
“A common source of misunderstanding is the neglect of what happens when variables are combined in different ways.
Although a functional analysis begins with relatively isolated relations, an important part of its task is to show how its variables interact.”
That which you must know from a functional analysis?
That which you can safely infer from a functional analysis?
That which you do not need to know from a functional analysis?
7/24/2018
26
That which I must know via my functional analysis:
That I can reliably turn problem behavior off with the presentation of the reinforcers
That I can reliably turn problem behavior on with the presentation of the evocative events
And that the reinforcers and evocative events were identified by other people relevant to the behaver
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
p
er M
in
0
1
2
3
ControlTest
Session 2
Reinforcement
Problem Behavior during Establishing Operation Problem Behavior during Reinforcement
Seconds
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Session 5
Session 4
BrandonEscape to attention,tangibles, andmand compliance
7/24/2018
27
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
p
er M
in
0
1
2
3
ControlTest
Session 2
Reinforcement
Problem Behavior during Establishing Operation Problem Behavior during Reinforcement
Seconds
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Session 5
Session 4
BrandonEscape to attention,tangibles, andmand compliance
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5
Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
p
er M
in
0
1
2
3
ControlTest
Session 2
Reinforcement
Problem Behavior during Establishing Operation Problem Behavior during Reinforcement
Seconds
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Session 5
Session 4
BrandonEscape to attention,tangibles, andmand compliance
That which I can safely infer via my functional analysis:
Response class membership
7/24/2018
28
Problem Behaviors reported to co-occur
(in order of concern)
1. SIB
2. Aggression
3. Disruptive Behavior
4. Disruptive vocalizations
5. Whining/complaining
This analysis shows all forms of problem behavior are evoked and maintained by same synthesized contingency.
This happens every time we conduct this sort of analysis.(Warner et al., 2016)
This happens every time anybody else conduct this sort of analysis (Smith and Churchill, 2002, Borrero & Borrero, 2008, Herscovitch et al., 2009)
7/24/2018
29
That which I can safely infer via my functional analysis:
Response class membership
Reported co-occurrence = maintained by same reinforcers
I will infer response class membership and use their response to intervention (RTI) as verification
That which I do not need to know via my functional analysis:
The single operant function of each problem behavior
Whether problem behavior is maintained by positive or negative reinforcement
Whether some element of a synthesized contingency is a “true” contingency or merely a “false positive”
Whether I can neatly compartmentalize the operation in the analysis into a tidy generic class of reinforcement
(e.g., social positive, social negative, attn, tang, esc, etc.)
7/24/2018
30
A final point…
High rates in tests sessions of functional analyses are not to be celebrated
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5 6Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
Min
0
2
4
6
8
10
ControlTest
Sylvie
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Escape toattention, tangibles
Reinforcement
Problem Behavior during Establishing Operation
Problem Behavior during Reinforcement
Seconds
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Seconds
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Session 2 Session 2
Session 4
Session 6
Session 4
Session 5
*
High rates of PB are not necessarily a good thing in a functional analysis
7/24/2018
31
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5 6Pro
ble
m B
ehav
ior
per
Min
0
2
4
6
8
10
ControlTest
Sylvie
Sessions
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Escape toattention, tangibles
Reinforcement
Problem Behavior during Establishing Operation
Problem Behavior during Reinforcement
Seconds
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Seconds
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Session 2 Session 2
Session 4
Session 6
Session 4
Session 5
*
If you can control problem behavior in an analysis, you can treat
that behavior.
You can do this.
If you try but can’t control problem
behavior in an analysis, your treatment will likely create unsafe
situations, be ineffective, and
necessitate restrictive or socially invalid
treatment components.
Come up with at least one question relevant to conducting
this practical functional assessment process
7/24/2018
32
On to treatment at 1:15 today.
For more information, go to:
www.practicalfunctionalassessment.com